What did DAD say … to cause his son’s surprised facial expression??
Photo courtesy of Shorpy’s.
What did DAD say … to cause his son’s surprised facial expression??
What did DAD say … to cause his son’s surprised facial expression??
Photo courtesy of Shorpy’s.
By Mike Walsh
December 19, 1945 … a 33-year old British-born Spanish national was illegally hanged at London’s grim Victorian Wandsworth Prison. It was the end of a life, but the beginning of a legend.
Had (John) Amery — the son of a British government minister served a prison sentence — few would have heard of him. Posterity decided otherwise; here was the making of a British martyr whose name would one day surely grace boulevards and parks named in his honour.
Born March 14, 1912, John Amery was baptised in the crypt of the House of Commons and educated at Harrow. Like Eton, the public school was favoured by the English elite. To keep their place in the class system’s pecking order, England’s political and aristocratic cabal collaborated with Jewish oligarchs.
John Amery was having none of that. Turning his back on the hedonistic lifestyle of his class, John Amery first went to France, and then in 1936 onward to Spain. There the Englishman fought on the side of the Nationalists against Moscow-backed Republicans. Amery fought on the front-lines with distinction.
In 1943, despairing of Britain’s war against the Democratic Reich, John Amery opted for service with Hitler’s Germany. One has to remember … that in 1943 Britain had not experienced an elected government for eleven years.
Unlike Adolf Hitler … Britain’s Prime Minister Winston Churchill was never elected to serve the country in that capacity.
From Germany — John Amery broadcast regularly — as did many Europeans. There was a common theme in all such broadcasts; the desperate need for peace between Germany, and (the) necessity to form an alliance against Bolshevik-Occupied Russia.
Bolshevik Russia – Circa 1922
Whilst in Germany John Amery was pivotal in setting up the League of St. George. The League, after the Englishman’s departure for Italy became the British Free Corps.
By the outbreak of Britain’s alliance with the USSR, it is estimated that at least 30 million Russians and Central European Orthodox Christians had been slaughtered, starved or worked to their death by the Jewish Bolsheviks.
New York’s bowler-hatted, Bolshevik bankers in 1917 had invested in the overthrow of Tsar Nicholas II and government of Imperial Russia. The Bolshevik megacaust proceeded from the so-called “Russian Revolution” now known as American-inspired regime change.
From 1922 (onward) America and Britain’s industrial corporations threw their industrial clout into the opportunities offered by the world’s largest slave population. Amery and his associates decided that they had no wish to live under race-traitors, or to endure a hand-to-mouth existence in a Jewish-controlled world. >con’t to FULL ARTICLE
“Germany becomes too powerful. We have to crush it.” – Winston Churchill (November 1936 to US–General Robert E. Wood)
Winston Churchill: “We will force this war upon Hitler, if he wants it or not.” – (1936 broadcast)
“Germany’s unforgivable crime before WW2 was its attempt to loosen its economy out of the world trade system, and to build-up an own exchange system from which the (((world–finance))) couldn’t profit anymore. …We butchered the wrong pig.” – Winston Churchill, The Second World War (Book by Winston Churchill, Bern, 1960) [Amazon]
SEE: >>> Parts 1 & 3 HERE.
Click centre arrow to begin video.
The currently approved conceptual framework for American race relations dictates that Whites — all of them, simply by dint of being White — are oppressors.
Any deviation from this rigid script, no matter how deeply rooted in fact, must be immediately annihilated like a blood-engorged tick.
We are taught that black academic and financial under-performance—as well as black over-performance in crime—are the direct result of slavery’s horrid legacy. There are to be no other possible explanations. To note the hugely embarrassing fact that American blacks live far longer and under vastly superior economic conditions in America than they do in any majority-black nation on Earth may be factual, but it is RACIST because it undermines the ironclad Guilt Narrative that must never be questioned.
Here are some facts that The Script demands you ignore:
1) Even at the peak of American slavery, only a tiny percentage of American whites—about 1.5%—owned (any) slaves.
2) Leading up to the Civil War, a vastly higher quotient of Whites had worked as indentured servants and convict laborers than had ever owned slaves. Most historians, regardless of their political orientation, agree that anywhere from half to two-thirds of (European) Whites who came to the American colonies arrived in bondage. The fact that the vast majority of Whites existed in a state closer to slavery than to slave ownership is something resolutely ignored in the modern retelling of history.
3) Documents from the era show that so-called white “indentured servants” were often referred to as “slaves” rather than “servants.”
4) These “servants” did not always enter into voluntary contracts. There is overwhelming evidence that many of them were kidnapped by organized
criminal rings and sent to work on American plantations. It is possible that as many, if not more, whites than blacks were brought involuntarily to the colonies.
5) The middle-passage death rates for these “servants” were comparable to that of blacks on slave ships from Africa to the New World.
6) Indentured servants were whipped and beaten, sometimes to death. When they escaped, ads were placed for their capture.
7) They lived under conditions so brutal that an estimated half of them died before their seven-year term of indenture expired.
I covered many of these facts in my book The Redneck Manifesto. The chapter regarding White slavery is here. A simplified “kids” version is here. And recently Gavin McInnes and I covered much of the same ground in this video.
I’ve often discussed how guilt is one of the primary political weapons—in the long run, possibly more powerful than bullets. Since the currently accepted narrative is based far more on an attempt to quarantine historical guilt among Whites than it is a sober assessment of the facts, the typical response to any discussion about White slavery is emotional rather than logical.
“To White slavery deniers such as Liam Hogan and the SPLC, these are all ‘false equivalencies’—possibly because they render the idea of universal White guilt as undeniably false.”
Ninety-nine percent (99%) of the time, “rebuttals” consist of nothing more than ad-hominem attacks, straw men, and appeals to motive. I often get accused of trying to “justify” slavery or of trying to argue that two wrongs make a right. When I counter that I’m arguing that two wrongs make two wrongs—and that I wonder why the sole focus is on one wrong rather than all of them—I am accused of being a racist liar.
Most frustratingly, I’m falsely accused of saying that White slaves had it worse than black slaves. No, actually, in The Redneck Manifesto, I was merely quoting people who alleged that:
Howard Zinn states that “white indentured servants were often treated as badly as black slaves.” Eugene Genovese claims that “In the South and in the Caribbean, the treatment meted out to white indentured servants had rivaled and often exceeded in brutality that meted out to black slaves….”
“While over 500 women were attacked in a mass rape attack in Cologne (January 2016), Merkel stated that there is nothing but hate in the hearts of “Germans who think Germany belongs to them” and finished her speech with a call to stop differentiating between ‘newcomers’ and ‘the old Germans’. ”
“Germany has the lowest birth rate in the world. Last year she (Merkel) called for the state to do more “propaganda” in Africa and Arab nations “directed to young males“ (no females??) to give incentives to move to Germany to fill “much needed jobs“ and solve the demographic crisis.”
[Editor’s Note: It’s quite evident, by her statements and actions, that Chancellor Angela Merkel’s intent is to breed-out White Germans and be replaced with an inferior, mixed-race of mongrel slaves. Of course, Merkel will die of old age before seeing the completion of her traitorous handiwork against today’s indigenous German volk …so no worries for her.]
… another short video on Adolph Hitler and describing Germany’s descent into extreme poverty after WWI, and thus leading to Berlin’s sexual debauchery throughout the 1920s.
TODAY’S GERMANY under a Marxist German Chancellor
So let’s talk, instead, about who actually owned those slaves. Here’s some information derived from the peer-reviewed research project entitled Black Masters: A Free Family of Color in the Old South, by Michael P. Johnson and James L. Roak By the early 1700’s the huge number of free blacks prompted fears of a “Negro insurrection” leading to Virginia Colonial ordering the repatriation of freed blacks back to Africa. But many, if not most blacks, sold themselves to White masters so they would not have to go to Africa. Clever boys!
By 1830 there were 3,775 black families living in the South who owned black slaves. In 1830, a fourth of the free Negro slave masters in South Carolina owned 10 or more slaves; eight owning 30 or more. Black Duke University professor John Hope Franklin recorded that in New Orleans over 3,000 free Negroes owned slaves, or 28% of the free Negroes in that city. In 1860 there were at least six blacks in Louisiana who owned 65 or more slaves. The largest number, 152 slaves, were owned by the widow C. Richards and her son P.C. Richards. Another black slave-magnate in Louisiana — with over 100 slaves — was Antoine Dubuclet, the owner of a huge sugar plantation.
In Charleston, South Carolina in 1860, 125 free Negroes owned slaves; six of them owning 10 or more. Of the $1.5 million in taxable property owned by free Negroes in Charleston, more than $300,000 (20%) represented slave holdings. In North Carolina69 free Negroes were slave owners.
There are many other examples of black slave owners cited. Some of them even employed White overseers to manage their black slaves. Now, we also know that the proportion of slave-owning Whites in the Confederacy was probably as low as 3%. Sooo… the reality is that many blacks — like sated ticks from a lifetime feasting on White-provided “reparations” — may themselves be the descendants of (black) slave owners. While the antecedents of (today’s) unfortunate White mugs picking up the reparations tab … were almost certainly not slave owners. Isn’t that something else? Also see my post on The Great Slavery Wheeze. >Source
|World Population – 7,500,000,000
NON-whites 92% vs 8% WHITES
Today’s White Nations are “BROWNING OUT”… as did former White nations from thousands of years ago.
Professor of Sociology, UNB
Author of “The Uniqueness of Western Civilization”
Last year, Maclean’s (Magazine July 9) had a front cover story “How Canadian Are You?” — bumptiously announcing that Canadians have earned the right to brag as a people with a great culture.
It offered an endearing “Canada Day Special” quiz for readers to determine how Canadian they were.
How much do you weigh? How many servings of veggies do you eat a day? How many times a week do you have sex? Should the NHL ban fighting? How many partial curl-ups do you do in one minute? If you scored between 20 and 25, you earned “bragging rights,” you are “a quintessential Canadian.” But if you scored between 5 and 9, you are lacking in “Canadian pride,” you are not in the right country.
This is what contemporary Canadian identity has become after five decades of mass immigration combined with endless pageants to multiculturalism. The idea that Canada has no other identity (other) than ethnic diversity has been encrypted into our brains starting with Pierre Trudeau’s announcement in Parliament in 1971:
“We believe that cultural pluralism is the very essence of Canadian identity. Every ethnic group has the right to preserve and develop its own culture and values within the Canadian context. To say we have two official languages is not to say we have two official cultures, and no particular culture is more ‘official’ than another.”
[Editor’s Note: The often-quoted Cicero stated over 2,000 years ago:
“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.”
According to Trudeau, every ethnic identity in the world is, and can become equally “Canadian“.
The British and the French are no more important to the making of Canada’s identity than the Chinese, Muslim, Mali, or Latino “Canadian”. “Racism and bigotry” were a “large part” of Canada’s “official” history and tradition as a European nation. This once-official view will no longer be tolerated.
The “White Canada” policy laid down in the Immigration Act of 1910, and extended in the Immigration Act of 1952 … ended in the Immigration Regulations of 1967, when a non-racial set of admission criteria was adopted.
According to those Regulations, the Act of 1952 was unpardonable. Today, few care to consider that the justification behind the “White Canada” immigration policy was the preservation and cementation of the primary role of Canada’s founding peoples of European origin. The idea that other peoples (who had taken no part in the settlement efforts and in the centuries-long creation of the institutions and infrastructure of Canada) might simply arrive in mass numbers to claim Canada as equally their own was anathema to Canadians before the establishment of multiculturalism.
The new 1967 immigration regulations emphasizing skill and education rather than ethnic origins were not brought on by popular demand, or even parliamentary debate and initiative, but by senior Ministers and Cabinet officials who “did not trust the average Canadian to respond in a positive way on this issue” (Hawkins, p. 63).
Gallup polls in the 1960s showed that only about one-third of Canadians thought that Canada should bring new immigrants, and over 60% thought that the fairly low levels of Asian immigration (at the time) were already too high.
This clip was taken when the City of Toronto was overwhelming White with few racial minorities (mostly Chinese):
In complete disregard to Canadian popular wishes, the borders of Canada were set wide open in the 1980s to immigrants from Asia, Africa, the Caribbean, Central and South America and the Middle East, under the directives of the major (political) parties, the media, tenured academic radicals, and business elites.
The number of immigrants coming each year into Canada since the early 1990s has been staggering, roughly 225, 000 and 260,000 immigrants per year … mostly from NON-European nations (85%+- NON-whites).
From 1981 to 2001, (Canada’s) visible-minorities increased more than threefold (almost 400%) from 1.1 million people, or nearly 5% of the population, to 4.0 million people, or 13% of the population.
By 2011 the foreign-born population of Canada stood at 20.6 per cent. Settling mostly in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver, immigrants have radically transformed the cultural composition and socio-ethnic dynamics of Canada’s major cities.
By 2017, it is expected that 50% of Toronto’s population will be immigrants, up from 44% in 2001.
In Vancouver, the proportion is projected to be 44%.
Today, the mainstream media (MSM), and the academic world take great pleasure in labelling our immigration policy prior to 1967 — as “racist and exclusionary”. But this is a cultural Marxist assessment of Canadian perceptions, their culture and ethnicity.
Canadians then, were part of a Western world committed and strongly attached to the idea that every individual citizen of Canada should be treated equally under the law without discrimination based on race, national origin, or religion. They were not “racist”, but merely ethnocentric — that is — a people with a natural and normal preference for their own ethnic traditions.
Ethnic groups throughout the world exhibit a preference for their own culture, and a disposition to judge other cultures by the standards of their own religion and customs. But today in the Western world, ethnocentrism is looked down upon as an attitude that contravenes the “universal brotherhood of humanity” to be manifested in Western multiethnic and multicultural societies.
As diverse ethnic groups come into contact with one another within Western countries, our liberal elites bow to the importance of “understanding” other cultures and overcoming one’s ethnic prejudices. Europeans still exhibiting strong attachments (to their age-old cultures) are said to be bogged down by “irrational fears”.
But recent scientific research shows otherwise: ethnocentrism is a healthy and practical evaluation of one’s ethnic identity and interests consistent with evolutionary theory and cultural sophistication. This is the argument ethnocentric individuals can opportunely take from a scientific paper published in Psychological and Cognitive Sciences (January 2011), with the fitting title: “Oxytocin promotes human ethnocentrism”. Written by a research team at the University of Amsterdam, directed by Dr. Carsten de Dreu, this article shows that oxytocin is a human molecule associated with in-group favoritism and out-group derogation.
Through a series of experiments in which participants were administered doses of oxytocin, the researchers learned that “a key mechanism facilitating in-group cooperation is ethnocentrism, the tendency to view one’s group as centrally important and as superior to other groups” at the expense of an out-group.
How, then, did European Canadians come to accept the idea that it is “racist” and “xenophobic” to exhibit preference for one’s own ethnicity and heritage, while believing, at the same time that every NON-European ethnic group has a right to preserve its own culture inside Canada?
How did Canadians come to believe that their identity can be proudly captured in answers to such banal Macleans (Magazine) questions as “How many rooms does your house have per person?” There is no space here to address these questions. Suffice it to respond — to those who claim that multiculturalism was in origins and essence a “quintessentially Canadian” idea and policy — that the relentless promotion of diversity and mass immigration, despite some variations, has been a Western-wide phenomenon since the 1960s.
The American President Lyndon B Johnson signed the Immigration Act of 1965, which led to a tremendous surge in immigration from Mexico and Asia in the decades that followed. Eight years later the “White Australia Policy” came to an end, resulting in a massive influx of ethnocentric Asians.
Western European nations have also seen their cultures awash in immigration and diversity. The British Nationality Act of 1948 affirmed the right of Commonwealth citizens (including those of newly independent Commonwealth countries like India) to settle in the United Kingdom.
Commonwealth immigration rose from 3,000 per year in 1953 to 46,800 in 1956 and 136,400 in 1961 Some restrictions were introduced in the 60s and 70s including the British Nationality Act, which required migrants to have a “substantial connection with the United Kingdom” by birth or ancestry to a UK national.
Nevertheless, in the 1970s, averages of 72,000 immigrants were settling in the UK every year from the Commonwealth; and in the 1980s and early 1990s around 54,000 per year, rising to around 97,000 by 1999. About half the population increase in Britain between the 1991 and 2001 censuses was due to foreign-born immigration.
By 2012, White British had dropped (from 87.5% of the population in 2001) to ONLY 80.5%.
White Britons in London — in 2012 — accounted for less than half (44.9%) of its population, and more than one in three London residents is foreign-born. As the country was flooded with immigrants, diversity was strenuously enforced through incessant media campaigns including the transformation of the entire curriculum from pre-kinder onwards away from any historic pride in the British heritage. Similar changes have been brought by liberal elites in France, Spain, Italy, Sweden, Denmark, and increasingly as well in Norway, Switzerland, and Ireland.
[See: Perils of Racial Diversity]
Some will argue that these changes were “sensible” components of worldwide trends toward “globalization”, free trade and free capital mobility. The fact is that if economic globalization was naturally accompanied by the “free” mobility of people, then we should have also seen major demographic-ethnic changes in Asia, and the world generally.
Asia’s now advanced economies have seen international trade, investment and finance represent ever growing portions in their economies, but in total contrast to the countries of North America and Europe, Asia has not seen migrants grow as a share of its population. In fact, immigrants have accounted for a mere 1.4-1.6% of Asia’s population over the past 20 years. Moreover, contrary to the argument that immigration has been a necessity brought on by low fertility rates and ageing of the populations of the West, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, and other Asian countries have fertility rates below replacement, even lower than Canada’s and some of Europe’s countries: at 1.4, 1.2, 1.2, and 1.1 respectively. And the proportions of their populations above the age of 65 are very high and rising.
The question thus stands: Why are European-created nations the only ones experiencing mass immigration and multiculturalism? Some may point to the youth-centered counterculture emerging in the 1960s questioning the values of anyone over thirty — that is to say — the values of the silent majority of Canadians who felt comfortable with the Immigration Act of 1952.
Writers, actors, and producers across the West, whether in fiction, theatre, or film, broke old taboos against sexual explicitness, graphic violence, homosexuality, and divorce. The civil rights movement in the United States, exotic guerilla movements in the Third World, Aboriginal Rights, Quebec nationalism, opposition to the war in Vietnam, and the complete takeover of Canada’s universities by cultural Marxists, were components of the 1960s political atmosphere.
However, if I had to choose one reason why Western countries decided to negate their European heritage and ethnicity, I would say it was the twin ideologies of universalism and egalitarianism. By universal egalitarianism, I mean the idea that humans are essentially the same everywhere, and that our ethnicities and cultural ancestries are either superficial, or easy to transform through proper instruction in the acquisition of modern “universal values” such as civic equality, tolerance, affluent civility, and democratic participation.
The notion that the liberal elites in the West represented the highest ideals of humanity had become conventional thinking in the 60s. The West was ahead of other cultures in the institutionalization of these universal values; it was the moral obligation of Western elites to showcase these values to the world. Humanity could be united under these values with different ethnic groups co-existing and interbreeding in the same lands in an atmosphere of liberal affluence.
These ideas preceded the 1960s with roots going back to the Enlightenment and perhaps even Christianity. The senior government officials who introduced non-racial immigration rules in Canada in the 1960s were influenced by the ideas which led to the creation of the United Nations and a multiracial Commonwealth.
The UN Declaration of Universal Human Rights in 1948, the UNESCO statements on race (1950, 1951, 1964, 1967), with their language about a common humanity, which arose directly from the experience of Nazism, made some politicians uncomfortable with a Canada acting on the world stage as a democratic and liberal nation while excluding non-Whites from its borders. The Immigration Act of 1952 seemed old, exclusionary, and illiberal.
This love for a future non-ethnocentric humanity, projected onto a benign future that was not real, entailed a growing dislike and intolerance for the actual Canadian population of European ethnic origin. In 1971, this European population constituted about 96% of Canada’s demography. This existing European population still sympathized with Mackenzie King’s 1947 announcement in the House:
“The people of Canada do not wish, as a result of mass immigration, to make a fundamental alteration in the character of our population. Large-scale immigration from the Orient would change the fundamental composition of the Canadian population.”
But liberal elites, as the radical 1960s spread, were determined to re-engineer the souls of average Canadians. There was no national debate on multiculturalism and mass immigration. Canadian immigration policy proceeded, for the most part, by way of non-transparent regulations, executive directives, and administrative discretion … not by legislative action.
Immediately after Trudeau’s 1971 announcement, numerous programs were implemented: multicultural grants, ethnic development programs, funds for the writing of the NON-European ethnic histories, support for Canadian ethnic studies “to set the record straight” by reflecting Canada’s diverse cultural traditions and the contributions of non-British and non-French to Canada’s identity and history. All ethnic groups were to be seen as equal to the making of Canada. Never mind the actual historical and political fact of the two founding peoples of Canadian Confederation!!!
With grants freely available, there was, in the words of one observer, an “explosion of academic research into ethnicity.” Between 1971 and 1982, 88 scholarly works on cultural minorities were published in Canada, as well as numerous collections of papers ; many symposiums on Canadian ethnic groups and relations were held. A new discipline, “Canadian Ethnic Studies,” was born, soon to proliferate throughout the halls of academe. This was just the beginning of a “bonanza of remarkable proportions” in the promotion of multiculturalism through every level of society.
In June 1984, the Conservative Leader Brian Mulroney told a cheering crowd that his party now stood for multiculturalism and would not allow itself to be called “the Party of White Anglo-Saxon Protestants”. Multicultural diversity — he said — was an absolutely obligatory part of Canada’s national identity and to reject it … was to reject Canada.
He then outlined future changes his party intended to implement in the hiring policies of the federal government, services in non-official languages, more funds for the preservation and advancement of NON-European cultures and greater efforts to “stamp out racism wherever it rears its ugly head.”
This stamping out was directed singularly against the British people and their legacy in Canada. The French in Quebec had successfully managed to portray themselves — from the 1960s onwards — as an oppressed minority within Canada with its own legitimate identity seeking a new constitutional deal framed against Anglo Canada. It was the British, and then the Europeans who had assimilated to English Canada, who were being asked to relinquish any sense of culture deeply grounded in ethnic bonds, ancestry, and homeland.
The ethnicity of Quebecers, and of Native peoples, could be viewed in primordialist terms as deeply rooted in their lands, communities, histories, and customary identities. But normal British and English Europeans were prohibited from binding themselves to a geographical and cultural “homeland”.
Their ethnicity was to be de-linked from a homeland called “Canada”. There was no such a thing as a Canadian identity that could be linked primordially to the British or the English-Europeans. The European-Canadian identity was to be witnessed only in multicultural tolerance, pluralist values, democracy, and diversity. But since these values were “universal” — for “humanity” – they would not be seen as uniquely British or European.
To the contrary, these values would be used against any British sense of identity for the sake of protecting and promoting the ethnic pride of NON-Europeans.
Asians, Blacks, and Latinos had the right to preserve their own ethnic roots and culture in a “multicultural” Canada. They would have hyphenated identities such as “I am really Chinese, but I live in mosaic Canada,” or “I have ethnic Chinese roots, but I identify with Canadian diversity and democracy.”
Since the British were allegedly the agents of “racist” and exclusionary immigration practices, and whereas the immigrants (including the millions who were not yet in Canada) were the “victims” of such practices … multiculturalism, thus worked necessarily as a force against British identity, and as a force for non-European identities.
To this day — every day — media pundits and self-righteous academics insist that “racism” is experienced by immigrants of visible status, and that a “major goal of multiculturalism must be to eliminate racism.”
Forget that visible immigrants come from illiberal, racially ranked, and backward cultures, and that individual rights and non-racial discrimination policies were unique legacies of the British, and that visible immigrants in Canada are far more uncomfortable with other visible groups, than are European Canadians.
The point is … that “racism” per se, has been inexorably tied to the ethnocentrism of British/European Canada, and so the elimination of “racism” requires the eradication of British and European identity. Some iconic symbols and practices such as the maple leaf, hockey players, and calendar photographs of Lake Louise may be allowed. The Maclean’s ‘Canadian’ “with bragging rights” should ask for no more.
Perhaps on Canada Day, rather than celebrating the dispossession of European Canadians and their transformation into “quintessentially” deracinated characters, we should critically examine the unfounded notion that European ethnocentrism, and only European ethnocentrism, amounts to “ethnic cleansing”, “fanaticism,” and “violence” against outsiders (Kelley and Trebilock, p. 471).
Japan, Korea, and many other countries, have a very high degree of ethnic homogeneity, as do some Nordic European countries (Finland, Norway, and also Switzerland), but none of them are engaged in wars of exclusion and violence against other ethnic groups.
Ending mass immigration and multiculturalism in the West is not an act of exclusion and racism. It is the other way around : these policies have amounted to acts of exclusion and dispossession against the historic British and European peoples of Canada. Our cooperative nature is intrinsically connected to our in-group nature. Ethnocentrism means loyalty and commitment for one’s group; it does not entail “hatred” and “rancour” against other groups. The scientists Carsten de Dreu et al. observe 2011), in fact, that the tendency for in-group members is to favour their own rather than to hate outsiders:
“[T]here is good reason to believe that the in-group prejudice effect is far more basic to human life than is the out-group hate prejudice effect, and research on human ethnocentrism supported this positive-negative asymmetry of social discrimination. “
The multiculturalists are the ones who have infused politics with an intolerant ideology in which anyone proud of his European heritage, and refusing to join the multiculti choruses … is despised as a “xenophobic” outsider. The irony of creating a “universal humanity” is that it has required the dehumanization of the British people, or any other particular European group, wishing to retain its identity.
Multiculturalists advocate in-group favoritism for immigrants and cultural Marxists, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, out-group hate for those Canadians who love their European heritage.
They have demonized the European founding peoples of Canada as an out-group, an enemy of “humanity”, to be eradicated for the sake of NON-European “diversity”, and the creation of a new species inside Canada and the West.
Their position runs counter to the natural, healthy and rational ethnocentric prejudices of humans. It also runs counter to the actual ethnic diversity of the peoples of the earth. Why would the Japanese, Koreans, and Pakistanis want their countries to look like “diverse” Toronto?
Let us defend European ethnocentrism in the name of human nature and the true diversity of the peoples of the planet. >Immigration Watch Canada
(For added emphasis, underlined Bolded words and links are by ELN Editor)